Get those creative gears turning! We are accepting submissions through March 28!
Nominate an exceptional West Virginia teacher today!
On Demand
On Demand
Watch locally produced documentaries & more.
On Demand
On Demand
West Virginia Morning
Inside Appalachia
West Virginia Week
Mountain Stage
Us & Them
The Legislature Today
Send us your comments and questions.
Stream our board meetings.
Check out the latest WVPB news.
Sign up for our newsletter and get weekly updates.
Meet the WVPB staff.
WV Educational Broadcasting Authority, the WVPB Foundation, and the Friends of WVPB.
Come work with us!
Sponsor impactful and engaging media and entertainment.
Use your IRA to make a gift to WVPB.
Become a member with your gift of $1,000 or more.
There’s a fresh slate of legislative agendas in the new year and some include efforts to chip away at reproductive rights and access to abortion, even in states that have recently passed constitutional abortion rights ballot measures.
On this episode of Us & Them, Host Trey Kay looks at what’s ahead after a record number of initiatives passed in November. There’s a lot that conservative legislatures and courts can do to limit the voter-approved amendments. While legal maneuvering continues, the number of abortions in the U.S. is at its highest level in more than a decade thanks to the increased use of abortion pills and travel across state lines.
Abortion opponents want President Donald Trump to enforce a 19th century law they say will stop abortion pills through the mail. Meanwhile, abortion-friendly states are using shield laws to protect their telehealth abortion providers from criminal prosecution for providing abortion pills to women in states with bans. The U.S.’s inconsistent abortion laws are pitting states against each other, and state governments against their citizens.
This episode of Us & Them is presented with support from the CRC Foundation.
Subscribe to Us & Them on Apple Podcasts, NPR One, RadioPublic, Spotify, Stitcher and beyond.
“We got attacked from the religious right for putting a measure on the ballot that they tagged as too extreme. And we got attacked from the left for not going far enough. We had embraced the trimester tenets of Roe v. Wade, thinking that that was a good middle ground in South Dakota. So, we were kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place, wanting to work with them [Planned Parenthood and the ACLU], wanting their help. But at the end of the day, they just chose to not get involved with our efforts, which was unfortunate.”
– Rick Weiland
“In the months leading up to the election is when Gov. DeSantis really went full throttle on Amendment 4. If you were to scroll on social media, if you were to watch TV, you would see these state sponsored PSAs [public service announcements] that really were put there to counter pro-Amendment 4 language. The Department of State had certified Amendment 4 to appear on the ballot early in 2024 and then months later, turns out they’re conducting this big review and pulling all of these petitions. Election supervisors that we spoke to said it was unprecedented for the state to review petitions that they had already deemed as valid compared to, in a fraud review, looking at rejected petitions, which is what the state would have normally done.”
– Romy Ellenbogen
“Some of these other things that kind of fell in the Roe v. Wade decision that we had this assumption to the right of privacy. And in Illinois, do we want to make sure at the same time that we are going to put a constitutional amendment about choice? Do we want to include any of those other issues in the same breath? And if we are going to do something ‘choice plus,’ we need to make sure that messaging is just incredibly well done. And that takes time. It takes education. So I think that that is the conversation we’re having right now.”
– Illinois State Rep. Margaret Croke, 12th District
“The language is written very broadly. It lays out a very clear legal test for courts to apply. The trial courts who have addressed it have found it very understandable and very protective.
“I would like to think that whatever party identification is next to a judge’s name, that they will read the law and apply the law as it’s written. I would like to think that, regardless of what their party composition is, that they’re going to do their jobs. It certainly is a cause for concern as an attorney and as an attorney who may be litigating in front of that court. But, you know, like I said, in theory and, you know, according to what conservative justices say, they believe that the text of the Constitution is worthy of respect and it’s what they have to follow. And I think if they do that, we should still win all of our cases.“
– Jessie Hill, law professor and volunteer attorney, ACLU of Ohio
“We just elected three Ohio pro-life Supreme Court justices and the current makeup of the court, which is seven members, six of them are endorsed by Ohio Right to Life. So, I can’t guess what they’re going to do. But here’s what I told the voters of Ohio this last election when they were considering who to vote for. Do you want a liberal pro-choice majority on the court writing the first decision on Issue 1? Or do you want a conservative pro-life court writing the first decision on Issue 1? And the voters of Ohio overwhelmingly chose the conservative court.”
– Mike Gonidakis, Ohio Right to Life
“So, if there’s a patient in Arkansas who’s looking for access to a medication abortion and either can’t travel or doesn’t want to, she can go online to one of the telemedicine providers in a shield state who serves all 50 states and does the screening. The doctor sends the medications to Arkansas. She gets her medications. And let’s say, her angry ex-husband or something, is like, ‘I don’t approve of this. I’m going after the doctor,’ and tries to get a criminal warrant against the doctor in New York. The state of New York, because of their shield law, is not going to send that provider down to Arkansas on a criminal charge.”
– Julie Kay, Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine
“Interstate transport is not governed by the states. Interstate transport is governed by federal law. And federal law already has a prohibition on interstate transport of abortion drugs. So there’s no new law. It’s been around for quite a while. It’s very specific. So, his [Trump’s] commitment not to try to limit abortion in the states by federal law is perfectly consistent with the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate activities. And that’s what he would be doing with the Comstock Act.”
– James Bopp, Jr., general counsel for National Right to Life
Other WVPB reports on the subject of abortion:
**Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported Allysa Wagner’s title. She is a Doctor of Nursing Practice and Medical Director of Hey Jane.
